ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS

Appellate Court

In re Marriage of Dorfman, 2011 IL App (3d) 110099

Appellate Court

Caption

In re MARRIAGE OF BETH DORFMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, and

BARRY DORFMAN, Respondent-Appellant.

 District & No. Third District

Docket No. 3-11-0099

Filed August 24, 2011

Held

(Note: This syllabus

constitutes no part of

the opinion of the court

but has been prepared

by the Reporter of

Decisions for the

convenience of the

reader.)

The trial court did not err in granting petitioner’s request to remove the

parties’ children to Georgia, and in doing so, the trial court did not shift

the burden of proof to respondent, the court’s reference to electronic

communication did not violate section 609(c) of the Illinois Marriage and

Dissolution of Marriage Act and respondent agreed when the trial court

ordered that if the parties could not agree on a visitation schedule, either

party could move to have the court conduct a hearing on visitation.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 08-D-246; the Hon.

Dinah J. Archambeault, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on

Appeal

Gregory Jumbeck (argued) and Mikal J. Stole, both of Reich, Jumbeck &

Associates, LLP, of Joliet, for appellant.

James R. Brumund and Sarah M. Vahey (argued), both of Brumund,

Jacobs, Hammel, Davidson & Andreano, LLC, of Joliet, for appellee.

Panel JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Carter and Justice Holdridge concurred in the judgment

and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Beth Dorfman, the petitioner, filed a petition to remove the parties’ minor children to

Georgia. Barry Dorfman, the respondent, filed a motion asking the court to order Beth and

the minors to move back to Illinois. After a hearing, the court granted Beth’s petition. Barry

appeals, contending that the trial court erred in granting Beth’s petition for removal because

it: (1) improperly considered the evidence in light of the applicable law and effectively

shifted the burden of proof to him; and (2) failed to provide Barry with any visitation rights

and improperly relied on the availability of electronic communications. We affirm.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 Beth and Barry were married on August 9, 1998. Beth gave birth to a son, Dylan, on

January 12, 2001, and a daughter, Alayna (Lanie) on July 14, 2002. Thereafter, on February

8, 2008, Beth filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and the court entered a judgment

dissolving the parties’ marriage on May 20, 2009. Pursuant to the terms of the judgment of

dissolution, the court awarded Beth sole custody of the minors. The court reserved the matter

of Barry’s visitation and noted that he had yet to complete a parenting class. Afterthe divorce

proceedings, the court granted Barry varying terms of supervised visitation.

¶ 4 Beth moved with the minors to Georgia in June 2010, and she filed her petition to

remove the minors on August 9, 2010. Barry filed a motion asking the court to order Beth

and the minors to move back to Illinois. The court conducted hearings on the removal

petition in December 2010 and January 2011. The record indicates that Barry acted pro se.

¶ 5 Barry and Beth testified at the hearings. Barry explained his mental health history and

stated that he had been voluntarily institutionalized in the psychiatric wards of various

hospitals on seven occasions between February and November 2008. The record indicates

that on July 3, 2008, prior to one of Barry’s admissions to the psychiatric ward, he left his

sister, Barbara Dorfman, a voice mail stating that he had purchased a gun, and police

-2-
subsequently found him driving in Lockport, Illinois, the town in which Beth and the minors

lived at the time. During Barry’s testimony, he denied having a gun, but acknowledged that

police found him driving around Lockport.

¶ 6 Barry also testified that he suffered from depression, but he believed that his depression

was situational. He acknowledged that he informed Rita Murr, the guardian ad litem (GAL)

for the minors, that he had been diagnosed with having borderline personality disorder. He

also stated that he had been prescribed Lexapro to help manage his depression, but denied

taking it at the time of the hearing. He denied ever taking any other psychiatric medications.

Beth, however, introduced an e-mail from Barry indicating that he had been prescribed five

psychiatric medications and that he filled three of the prescriptions. Beth also introduced

additional e-mails from Barry that indicated that Barry needed his psychiatric medication to

be able to live a normal life.

¶ 7 According to Beth, sometime around July 2007, Barry became convinced that she was

having an extramarital affair, and so he began to “interrogat[e]” her on a monthly basis about

her daily whereabouts. During Barry’s questioning of Beth, he would either act as if he were

in a trance or rage, depending on whether he could get the information he sought from Beth.

Beth explained that these “interrogation[s]” occurred weekly starting in November 2007.

According to Beth, half of the “interrogation[s]” occurred in the presence of the minors,

during which time Barry had called Beth “a liar and a whore.” Beth took a polygraph

examination to prove to Barry that she did not have an affair, but the results were

inconclusive due to problems with her breathing.

¶ 8 Barry acknowledged that the court had granted three emergency orders of protection in

favor of Beth and against him. The orders were granted on: (1) January 5, 2008, in case No.

08-OP-93; (2) May 19, 2008, in case No. 08-OP-898; and (3) July 7, 2008, in case No. 08-

OP-1197. The record indicates that Beth voluntarily dismissed the first order of protection

in an attempt to save the marriage. The record also shows that the order of protection entered

in case No. 08-OP-898 was subsequently dismissed, and the court entered a restraining order

in its place. The restraining order granted Barry visitation with the minors, but forbade him

from “physically or verbally abusing, harassing, threatening, or attempting to discuss issues

with Beth Dorfman not related to the parties minor children or logistical necessities.” The

record further indicates that the court extended the order of protection entered in case No.

08-OP-1197 until July 26, 2012.

¶ 9 Barry admitted that prior to dismissal of the January 5, 2008, order of protection, he had

violated it by approaching Beth while she was in the Flossmoor library. Beth explained that

she visited the library frequently, while Barry did not. On the day of the violation, Barry

approached her and asked to talk. Beth declined and called the police. Beth noticed that Barry

had a black eye, but someone had already informed Beth that it was self-inflicted. Barry also

acknowledged that he violated the restraining order by coming to Beth’s work, but he

contended that he “didn’t think [he] was violating anything” at that time.

¶ 10 Beth also explained the basis of the order of protection entered in case No. 08-OP-898.

Barry had become angry and had accused Beth of having “a hundred f*** friends that [he]

kn[e]w nothing about,” and ripped his underwear off of his body. Beth then gathered the

-3-
minors and attempted to leave their residence, at which point Barry threw Beth’s car keys

across the yard and shoved Beth to the ground. A neighbor intervened and helped Beth and

the children leave. The following day, Barry attempted to remove Dylan from his school, but

he was unsuccessful because the order of protection was already in place. Barry later called

Judy Dorfman, his mother, and informed her that he was attempting suicide by sitting in a

running car in a closed garage. The police subsequently rescued Barry, and he voluntarily

entered the hospital for psychiatric help.

¶ 11 Barry also stated that the court had convicted him of two misdemeanor offenses of

violating an order of protection, and he served jail terms on each conviction of 18 and 28

days, respectively. The court also convicted Barry of a third offense of violating an order of

protection. This conviction was a felony, and Barry was sentenced to a one-year term of

imprisonment. Barry’s term of imprisonment for this offense began on December 22, 2009,

and ended on June 22, 2010. At that time, he was released to Judy’s home subject to an ankle

monitoring device that prohibited him from leaving this residence without advance

permission. The ankle monitoring device was to be removed on June 22, 2011.

¶ 12 Pursuant to the May 30, 2008, restraining order, Barry was granted visitation of various

times for five or six days per week. In orders entered on August 21, 2008, and August 26,

2009, the court granted Barry supervised visitation of the minors for one day per week.

¶ 13 Barry exercised visitation with the minors on three occasions from May 31 to June 13,

2008; three times from September 1 to October 1, 2008; at no time between October 15,

2008, and January 5, 2009; and four times between January 10 and February 13, 2009. The

record contains an e-mail from Barry to Beth dated April 1, 2009, where Barry requested that

Beth stop sending him “report cards or anything else.” In that e-mail, Barry furtherstated that

he was “done,” and that he “ha[d] no family . . . they [were Beth’s] kids.” Although the

record does not disclose further specific information on Barry’s visitation with the minors,

it indicates that Barry filed a motion on August 17, 2010, stating that he was permitted to

have contact with the minors, but that he also wanted visitation with them. Barry also

testified that he had phoned the minors every day since August 2010, and that a recent visit

with them had gone very well.

¶ 14 The record also contains numerous other e-mails and voice mails from Barry to Beth.

Many of these messages were addressed to the minors, but Barry stated that he sent them to

Beth’s e-mail and voice mail accounts with the expectation that she would intercept them.

In these messages, Barry generally accused Beth of having an extramarital affair, and

specifically stated that “a whole bunch of dominos will come falling down on [Beth] and

expose her for the liar, cheater, horrible person, breaker of the ten commandments she [was].

And yes, unfortunately, that [made] her a WHORE.” Barry also wrote an e-mail that had

“Dylan & Lane” in the subject, and continued in the body by stating that the minors “[we]re

better off being raised by ANYONE who [did not] run off at night F*** other guys while

their home with their father. You f*** WHORE!!! You’re a f*** whore. How’s your other

daughter, you whore, huh? Everyone will know [the truth] soon, cuz I’ve got nothing to lose.

So, the truth is coming out... YOU F*** SLUT, CHEAT, WHORE!!!!!” Barry also sent an

e-mail with “Kids” in the subject line, and in the body called Beth “GARBAGE.”

-4-
¶ 15 According to Barry, he was drinking heavily when he sent Beth these e-mails. Barry

acknowledged that two men in Wisconsin had obtained orders of protection against him,

because Barry left offensive and threatening voice mail messages for them due to his belief

that they were involved in Beth’s alleged affair.

¶ 16 Regarding Barry’s reference to Beth’s “other daughter,” the record indicates that Beth

had a daughter at age 18 and gave her up for adoption. While Beth’s parents and Barry knew

thisinformation, Beth intentionallykept this information from her extended family, including

her grandparents, aunts, and uncles. Barry admitted, however, that he had sent a letter to five

of Beth’s extended-family members stating that she had had a child at age 18 and that she

had had an extramarital affair. Beth stated that Barry sent this information to over 10 of her

relatives and that it had caused her problems with her family.

¶ 17 Beth also read some of the contents of two compact discs (CD) of phone messages left

for her or the children by Barry. One disc was compiled on June 10, 2009, by the Mokena

police department, and it consisted of 28 messages. The second disc was compiled by the

department on November 3, 2009, and it consisted of 36 messages. Barry stipulated that he

made the phone calls.

¶ 18 Barry specifically acknowledged that around March 2009, he left a voice mail for Beth

with “threatening remarks such as: ‘You will die’ and ‘Someone will kill you[.]’ ” Other

voice messages included a threat that “[t]otally destroying [Beth was] the only thing [Barry]

and [his] lawyer [wanted to] do.” Barry also left a message for the minors that stated in part

“join me in my hopes that Mommy gets hit by a truck head on while she’s driving. Except

it’s more painful because that’s what she really deserves. So join in with me, will you? I

believe that will happen.”

¶ 19 Barry explained that he had been treated by Dr. Mark Shukhman since September 9,

2009, for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and Beth introduced notes

Shukhman took in his treatment of Barry. Shukhman’s notes indicated that during Barry’s

initial appointment with Shukhman, Barry did not inform Shukhman of his history of

psychiatric hospitalizations, suicide threat, previous medications, or ongoing legal problems

with Beth and the minors. Barry informed Shukhman that he did not have a problem with

alcohol dependence and that he only consumed alcohol once or twice per week.

¶ 20 Shukhman prescribed Barry Adderall to help with his ADHD, and Barry contended that

he used this medication appropriately. Shukhman’s notes, however, revealed that during the

first month that Barry took Adderall, Barry called Shukhman on October 6, 2009, and

requested that Shukhman write a new prescription for it, because Barry had run out of it prior

to his October 12 appointment. These notes also disclosed that prior to Barry’s term of

imprisonment in December 2009, he informed Shukhman that he was “ ‘doing quite well’ ”

and that he felt “very balanced.” However, during Barry’s first appointment with Shukhman

following his prison release, he told Shukhman that his problems were due to alcohol.

¶ 21 According to Barry, he opposed removal of the minors to Georgia. Barry testified that

the schools in Georgia were “behind” those in Illinois. He also admitted that he had not

worked since December 2008, at which time he held a job for one day before getting fired.

Although Barry collected unemployment until November 2009, he did not pay Beth any

-5-
support for the minors. Barry also testified that he had not left a threatening voice mail or email for Beth since November 2009, and he had not consumed alcohol since December 2009.

He believed that he had already been punished for his behavior and wanted the minors to

return to Illinois. Barry nonetheless acknowledged he verbally abused Beth and that the time

he had spent in prison could not undo the mental terror he caused her.

¶ 22 Beth testified that as early as 2004 or 2005, Barry’s alcohol consumption became a

“noticeable problem” and that, around that time, he also began smoking cannabis, spending

excessively, gambling, and viewing pornography. Barry informed her that he was abusing

his Adderall medication by taking double his recommended dosage. Beth stated that his

prescription bottle was typically empty one week before it should have been.

¶ 23 Beth also stated that Barry had left a message threatening to carve the letter A into her

heart, but this message was not included on either CD compiled by the Mokena police. Beth

also stated that in the past, Barry had referenced the O.J. Simpson case and stated that he

would kill her if she ever had an affair. Beth feared that Barry would follow through on this

threat, as he had threatened to send a letter to her extended family disclosing that she had had

a child at age 18, and he had subsequently done so.

¶ 24 Beth stated that she was “fearful” and “terrified” of Barry. Beth explained that she

relocated to Georgia on the day before Barry was released from prison in June 2010 and that

since then, she has no longer had to “look over [her] shoulder after the threats that [Barry]

made.”Beth acknowledged that she relocated without first asking permission from the court,

but she contended that she did not know she needed permission. According to Beth, Barry

subsequently informed the minors that Beth violated the law by taking them to Georgia and

that he and his familywere angry. Beth also disclosed that she had recentlyhad conversations

with Barry that were to pertain to the minors, and she stillsaw “the signs of the anger and the

obsession ***, and [that Barry] just [came] at [her] with accusations still.” Beth testified that

she was raising the minors in the Jewish faith, which was Barry’s faith and not her own, and

that she had also purchased gifts for the minors and told them that the gifts were from Barry.

¶ 25 In Georgia, Beth and the minors resided with her father and his wife, where they shared

a four-bedroom home. Beth believed that the schools in Georgia were equivalent to those in

Illinois and that the children were doing well and were engaged in extracurricular activities.

Beth’s father supported them financially, and he and his wife also helped with child care and

transportation.

¶ 26 Beth also believed that she had better employment opportunities in Georgia. Beth

explained that in Illinois, she had worked as a school psychologist and last earned a salary

of $48,000 per year. However, she obtained an administrator’s certificate in Georgia and was

eligible for jobs that paid $60,000 to $70,000 per year. Beth also stated that the cost of living

in Georgia was less than in Illinois. She explained that before she and the minors moved to

Georgia, they lived in an apartment in a secure building due to her fear of Barry, which

further increased her cost of living.

¶ 27 Beth stated that she would cooperate with visitation. She explained that the minors’

school schedule provided a summer vacation from the end of May until August, week-long

breaks in September, November, Februaryand April, and a two-week break in December and

-6-
January. Beth was also open to weekend visitation. Beth was willing to purchase the minors’

plane tickets between Illinois and Georgia, and she stated that these tickets cost $120 round

trip if purchased in advance. Either Beth or an airline escort would accompany the minors

on their trips.

¶ 28 Beth wanted visitation to be supervised, and because she enjoyed a close relationship

with Barbara and Judy, she believed they could supervise and facilitate visitation, especially

given that Barry resided with Judy. Beth explained that she wanted to keep visitation

supervised because Barry had yet to receive any treatment for his alcohol abuse or obsessive

and controlling behavioral issues. She also expressed a fear that Barry would resume his

prior behavior once he completed his term of parole and the removal issue was determined.

The record indicates that at the start of the second day of the hearing, Beth stated that she

“would like the visitation to go forward this week” and that the minors were going to stay

with Barbara for the weekend. Beth permitted Murr to determine the specific terms of that

weekend’s visitation.

¶ 29 Murr issued a report and testified. Murr explained that the instant case was her first one

serving as a GAL. Murr also testified that at the time she prepared her report, Barry had not

informed her of his previous alcohol use and did not furnish her with his medical records.

¶ 30 Murr opined that the court should deny Beth’s petition for removal. Murr specifically

indicated that she “ha[d] concerns that [Beth] left their home, a job, and uprooted the

children without permission of th[e] court based upon her need to feel ‘safer’.” Murr further

stated that Barry had never been physically abusive to Beth and that he could make

threatening phone calls to Beth whethershe lived in Illinois or Georgia. Murr concluded that

Beth’s “fear [did] not seem reasonable in light of all the circumstances.”

¶ 31 Murr reported that Barry “adamantly believe[d] that [Beth] had an affair and admit[ted]

to be[ing] occupied with that idea.” Barry also expressed concern that the minors would not

answer his questions regarding their whereabouts or daily activities. Murr’s report indicated

that Lanie “[was] tired of [Barry] talking about [Beth] and wanted him to stop.” Lanie also

disclosed that Barry told her that they were moving back to Illinois. Beth informed Murr that

this information upset Lanie, and Lanie informed Murr that “she [did not] want to move and

her life would be ruined.” Murr related that Dylan was open to living in either Illinois or

Georgia. Murr also explained that she sent an e-mail to Barry and Beth requesting that they

not speak of the pending removal casewith the minors, even though the e-mail was prompted

only by Barry.

¶ 32 Murr disclosed that Lanie had heard her parents fight when they all resided together and

that she “remember[ed Barry] pushing [Beth] and throwing the keys.” Murr acknowledged

that Lanie believed that Barry may harm Beth.

¶ 33 Murr stated that she did not believe that Beth’s or the minors’ lives would be better in

Georgia, as Beth had “plenty of family” in Illinois to help her. Although the record does not

indicate that Murr knew Beth’s daily work schedule, she stated that “[t]here was no need for

daycare” when Beth and the minors lived in Illinois because Beth worked at a school and had

a schedule that mirrored the minors’.

¶ 34 Murr did not believe a reasonable visitation schedule could be reached if the minors

-7-
continued to reside in Georgia. She explained that although Barry had seen the minors once

in the past 14 months, the proposed visitation would not be sufficient to allow Barry to bond

with the minors, as the minors could only visit “four times during the school year plus two

holiday breaks.” Murr acknowledged that she observed a visit between Barry and the minors

and that Dylan ran up to Barry and Lanie was “all smiles and giggling.” Murr believed that

Barry and the minors interacted well and that the minors obeyed him, and the minors

referenced visiting Barry again.

¶ 35 Murr believed that Barry’s visitation with the minors should be supervised, as Barry

“ha[d] yet to work through all his anger at [Beth] and he may be apt to say things to the

children about [Beth] in anger whether directly or indirectly.” Murr acknowledged that Barry

was currently seeing a counselor, and the counselor reported to her that she did not believe

that Barry was likely to resort to violence against Beth or the minors, “considering that

[Barry] had not been physically violent in the past.”

¶ 36 The court took the matter of removal under advisement. The court also reserved the

matter of Barry’s visitation, finding that it would have to rule on visitation notwithstanding

whetherit granted or denied Beth’s petition for removal. The court then stated that the parties

could try to work out a visitation schedule, and that if they could not, one party could file a

motion with the court and it would set visitation. Barry responded “[s]ure.”

¶ 37 The court granted Beth’s petition for removal. The court concluded that Beth’s testimony

regarding Barry’s previous behavior and her continuing fear of him were credible, and it

noted “appalling examples of [Barry’s] violating behaviors, including voice mails and emails.” The court also found that Barry’s abusive behaviors were not entirely due to his

alcohol consumption, and it noted that he had issues with legal and illegal drugs as well as

his mental health. The court also expressed concern that Barry had not disclosed his suicide

attempt, depression, borderline personality disorder, or obsessive behaviorto Dr. Shukhman.

The court found that “[Barry] remain[ed] a threat to [Beth].”

¶ 38 Regarding the factors articulated by the supreme court in In re Marriage of Eckert, 119

Ill. 2d 316 (1988), the court found that Beth wanted to move to Georgia due to a fear of Barry

that “[was] well founded in fact.” The court found that Barry objected to the move to

preserve his relationship with the minors, and thus, both motives were without fault. The

court further found that Beth’s quality of life was enhanced in Georgia because she lived

without fear of Barry, and noted that Beth’s and the minors’ needs were provided for in

Georgia.

¶ 39 The court further found that visitation between Barry and the minors was limited,

whether the minors resided in Illinois or Georgia, due to Barry’s ankle monitoring device,

the order of protection that was not set to expire until July 26, 2012, and the need for

visitation to be supervised. The court believed that a reasonable and realistic visitation

schedule could be reached due to the minors’ liberal school break schedule and Beth’s close

relationship with Judy and Barbara. The court further stated that “[p]hone and Skype

communications would be available.”

¶ 40 The court also noted that Barry did not consistently obey court orders, given his repeated

violation of the orders of protection, and that he failed to recognize his shortcomings and

-8-
blamed his problems on alcohol. The court also stated that it was “not convinced *** that

once the ankle bracelet [was] removed that [Barry’s] past behavior will not resurface as

[Barry had] not taken sufficient steps to guard against relapse.”

¶ 41 Barry appealed.

¶ 42 ANALYSIS

¶ 43 I. Removal

¶ 44 Barry argues that the trial court erred when it granted Beth’s petition for removal.

Specifically, Barry argues that the trial court improperly considered the evidence in light of

the applicable law and effectively shifted the burden of proof to him.

¶ 45 Section 609(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS

5/609(a) (West 2008)) provides, in relevant part:

“The court may grant leave *** to any party having custody of any minor child or

children to remove such child or children from Illinois whenever such approval is in the

best interests of such child or children. The burden of proving that such removal is in the

best interests of such child or children is on the party seeking the removal.”

¶ 46 In Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316, the supreme court held that a ruling on the best interests of the

child in a removal action necessarily involves a careful consideration of the specific

circumstances of each individual case. Reviewing courts grant great deference to the trial

court’s removal decision (Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316), as the trial court is in the best position to

observe the parties and assess their personalities and capabilities. In re Marriage of Guthrie,

392 Ill. App. 3d 169 (2009). “The presumption in favor of the result reached by the trial court

is always strong and compelling” (Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d at 330); thus, we will not reverse a trial

court’s ruling on a petition for removal unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the

evidence (Guthrie, 392 Ill. App. 3d 169). A judgment is against the manifest weight of the

evidence when the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or when the trial court’s findings

are unreasonable, arbitrary or not based on the evidence. In re Custody of K.P.L., 304 Ill.

App. 3d 481 (1999).

¶ 47 The Eckert court set forth five factors for courts to consider when deciding a removal

petition: (1) “the proposed move in terms of likelihood for enhancing the general quality of

life for both the custodial parent and the children”; (2) “the motives of the custodial parent

in seeking the move to determine whether the removal is merely a ruse intended to defeat or

frustrate visitation”; (3) “the motives of the noncustodial parent in resisting the removal”;

(4) “the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent”; and (5) “whether *** a realistic and

reasonable visitation schedule can be reached if the move is allowed.” Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d at

326-27. Regarding visitation, a trial court may properly consider the degree to which the

noncustodial parent has exercised his visitation in the past. In re Marriage of Repond, 349

Ill. App. 3d 910 (2004); see also Eckert, 119 Ill. 2d 316 (trial court may consider the fact that

a noncustodial parent objects to removal, but has not exercised his visitation rights).

¶ 48 The Eckertfactors are not exclusive, however, and the trial court should consider any and

all relevant evidence in arriving at its decision. In re Marriage of Collingbourne, 204 Ill. 2d

-9-
498 (2003). No single fact or factor is controlling, and the weight to be given each varies

from case to case. Collingbourne, 204 Ill. 2d 498. The trial court may further consider the

potential of the relocation to increase the general quality of life for both the custodial parent

and the children, including any benefit the children may receive from enhancement of the

custodial parent’s well-being. Ford v. Marteness, 368 Ill. App. 3d 172 (2006).

¶ 49 In this case, the court heard extensive testimony and properly considered the evidence

in light of Eckert and its progeny. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court’s

determination to grant Beth’s petition for removal was not against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

¶ 50 First, considering the Eckert factors, our review of the record does not reveal that either

Beth or Barry acted in bad faith in either seeking or challenging the removal of the children

to Georgia. Specifically, Barry testified that he opposed removal because he felt as if he were

recovering from his alcohol and behavioral problems and desired to spend more time with

his children. Beth, on the other hand, sought to relocate to Georgia just prior to Barry’s

release from prison in order to feel safe from Barry’s abuse, as well as to have financial,

emotional, and child care support from her father and his wife. Thus, Beth did not seek

removal as a ruse to frustrate Barry’s visitation.

¶ 51 Furthermore, regarding Barry’s visitation and whether a reasonable schedule could be

reached with a relocation to Georgia, the trial court properly noted that under the

circumstances of this case, the parties could reach a reasonable and realistic visitation

schedule. The record indicates that the children’s school schedule in Georgia provided

frequent breaks that lasted at least one week. Additionally, the court correctly noted that a

current order of protection and the supervised nature of Barry’s visitation placed limits on

the visitation. We note that these limits exist whether Beth and the children live in Illinois

or Georgia. We further note that prior to Barry’s term of imprisonment and the removal of

the children to Georgia, he did not consistently exercise his visitation with the minors.

¶ 52 We also agree with the trial court’s finding that the proposed move will benefit both Beth

and the children. Beth testified that since she has moved to Georgia, she does not live in fear

of Barry. We believe that Beth’s fear of Barry is real and reasonable, as he left numerous

voice mails and e-mails wishing her death and has violated the orders of protection. Further,

as the trial court found, Barry has not sought help for the alcohol or behavioral problems that

he claims were the source of the threats. We conclude that Beth’s ability to live without fear

of Barry directly enhances her life, and provides an indirect benefit to the children. Compare

In re Marriage of Krivi, 283 Ill. App. 3d 772, 776 (1996) (appellate court reversed trial

court’s grant of mother’s removal petition, and noted that although the parties engaged in a

physical altercation, the record did not indicate a “pattern of violence” in their relationship

and the father regularly exercised his visitation).

¶ 53 Additionally, the record indicates that Beth has shown cooperation in the past by raising

the minors in Barry’s faith and by purchasing gifts for the children and telling them theywere

from Barry. Furthermore, Beth will have assistance with child care, discipline, and finances

from her father and his wife.

¶ 54 Overall, this record indicates that the primary catalyst for Beth’s move to Georgia was

-10-
her fear of Barry, which was reasonable under the circumstances. We do not believe the trial

court failed to consider the evidence in light of Eckert or that the trial court’s determination

to grant Beth’s petition for removal was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 55 II. Visitation

¶ 56 Barry next contends that the trial court erred because it failed to provide him with any

visitation rights, and it improperly relied on the availability of electronic communications

when it granted Beth’s petition for removal.

¶ 57 Pursuant to section 607(a) of the Act, a noncustodial parent is entitled to reasonable

visitation, unless visitation would seriously endanger the physical, mental, moral, or

emotional health of the children. 750 ILCS 5/607(a) (West 2008). The trial court is vested

with broad discretion in determining matters of visitation, and we will not disturb a trial

court’s decision as to visitation unless the trial court abuses its discretion, or where a

manifest injustice has been done to the children or the parent. In re Marriage of Diehl, 221

Ill. App. 3d 410 (1991).

¶ 58 A party cannot complain of an alleged error to which he consented. See McMath v.

Katholi, 191 Ill. 2d 251 (2000). Furthermore, a party must properly preserve an issue for

appellate review by objecting to the alleged error at trial. See Committee for Educational

Rights v. Edgar, 174 Ill. 2d 1 (1996).

¶ 59 In this case, Barry is incorrect when he asserts on appeal that the trial court failed to

provide him with anyvisitation. Rather, the trial court stated that whetherit granted or denied

Beth’s petition for removal, a visitation schedule would have to be reached. The court then

stated that if the parties could not agree on a visitation schedule, then either party could file

a motion and the court would conduct a hearing on visitation. Barry responded “[s]ure.”

Thus, the record directly rebuts Barry’s contention that the trial court failed to provide him

with visitation. Moreover, not only did Barry not object to the trial court’s procedure, he

consented to it.

¶ 60 In any event, Barry has not cited, and we have not found, authority for the proposition

that a trial court must provide a visitation schedule before or at the same time it offers a

judgment on a petition for removal. See In re Marriage of Marsh, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1235

(2003) (court held a hearing in which it determined custody of the minors at issue, but

reserved the matter of visitation); see also K.P.L., 304 Ill. App. 3d 481 (in a guardianship

proceeding, this court affirmed the trial court’s decision to reserve the matter of a natural

father’s visitation).

¶ 61 We further conclude that the trial court did not violate the terms of section 609(c) of the

Act when it granted Beth’s petition for removal by noting the availability of electronic means

of communication.

¶ 62 Pursuant to section 609(c) of the Act, a “court may not use the availability of electronic

communication as a factor in support of a removal of a child by the custodial parent from

Illinois.” 750 ILCS 5/609(c) (West 2010). Here, however, the court’s reference to the

electronic communication was made in passingwhile discussing Barry’s visitation potential.

Specifically, the court noted that Barry was restrained by his ankle monitoring device and an

-11-
order of protection, that Beth would cooperate with visitation from Georgia due to her close

relationship with Barbara and Judy, that visitation could occur during the week-long breaks

from school and over the summer, and that “[p]hone and Skype communications would be

available.” Given this context, we conclude that the trial court did not improperly rely on

electronic communication as a reason to grant Beth’s petition for removal. The court simply

mentioned this factor in discussing the opportunities for in-person visitation from Georgia,

and it did not emphasize it.

¶ 63 CONCLUSION

¶ 64 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court of Will County is affirmed.

¶ 65 Affirmed.

-12-